Topic: If you don't like something the solution is more regulation - page 2. (Read 979 times)

Typically they believe in all of those things, though recently (last 10-15 years) people who have been elected on those ideals have jumped ship and abandoned those ideas in favor of far reaching government surveillance, a complete lack of privacy for the citizens, and so on. It's horrid to see the people that you elected to bring small government to Washington, disregard that and continue to expand the power of big government.

Both parties have been doing this for a long time, we really need change.

No, I would not support regulations.  But Trumps rhetoric is just that, rhetoric, his actions don't always resemble his tweets.  Nonetheless, assuming this isn't merely rhetoric, and he plans to act on his words, it wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with him.  However, I'm not the president. 

The EO suggest a method for citizens to complain to the FCC, and for the FCC to start tracking these allegations.  True, that may eventually result in regulations or changes to section 230, or it may fizzle out into nothing.  Surely you're not opposed to accumulating data.



I don't doubt it.  Okay, maybe "riots in the streets" is an exaggeration I used for effect, but look at all the mayhem that ensued when some political operative named Christine Blasey Ford said she may remember something that that may have happened maybe 40 years ago.  There are many such situations where the left will make mountains out of molehills because it's a useful tool to villainize the right.



Do you really have such little faith in the system?  POTUS has no authority to create laws, and certainly none to circumvent the courts. 

I guess he didn't realize that he had rights other than Constitutional rights... rights that were there before the Constitution came into being. Ninth Amendment:

Sure.  People who believe in a smaller government, fewer regulations, lower taxes, looser gun laws, stricter immigration laws, pro-life and eliminating federal debt.

From what I've experienced personally, compared to Liberals (I mean the American definition of Liberals) Conservatives have a lower tolerance for risk, are more pragmatic, more likely to have a traditional family, better at managing their finances and holding a steady job long term, more likely to be religious, less likely to have a high level of education. less likely to empathize with people from different cultures, and less open to new ideas and change.

I consider myself a Democrat but there are plenty of Republicans that I would vote for over plenty of Democrats.  Honestly I feel like general Republican characteristics make for a better president.  For example I disagree with many of Ben Sasse's votes - but the guy is so sharp, articulate and pragmatic that if he ran there's a decent chance I'd vote for him over any Democrat.  Would never vote for him to be my Senator though.

Are you the only real conservative on Bitcointalk?

It doesn't matter what you use, you advocate for this one sided policy, thus you are literally part of the problem. Yeah, why doesn't he just mute his voice and use a smaller platform! That will show those people trying to mute his voice!





You are such a poser. You don't agree with conservative/republican ideas at all. You are constantly agreeing with all the most extremist leftist opinions here. No one needs to bend over backward to justify the logic of this executive order, it makes perfect sense and it is something the people have been screaming for him to do since 2016, the first time they tried and failed to silence his constituency.

I see, so companies have human rights, and humans, well fuck their rights, letting them speak and treating these companies like all other publishers when they function as publishers hurts their feelings and violates the rights of that incorporation! You are such a tool and a poser.

Conservatives have tried to make their own platforms. You know what happens? They start attacking their hosting servers until they get dropped, they get demonized in the media as "supporting hate speech", they get their Cloudflare account shut down, they get their bank accounts closed, they get their emails shut down, and so on. This is nothing but fascism, but you keep telling me about your brilliant solutions Mr. "conservative" who is little more than a mouthpiece for liberal ideals with a red tie on.





Conservatives tend to be against CENTRALIZED education spending, you know the kind used as a tool to indoctrinate children into leftist ideals, huge costs with increasingly poor results, one size fits all, centrally managed, from the top down, federal dictate level using the Soviet model of education kind of policies. This is of course opposed to the more efficient, more culturally and ideologically diverse, less costly and better results that come from state managed systems. No, but because we oppose you milking the nation dry with a failing system designed to indoctrinate children to your ideals, we are "against education."

Give me a break, you "wouldn't give a shit" my ass. You people form fucking mobs to swarm anyone who strays from your strict leftist indoctrination, and do everything in your power to not only silence them, but destroy their lives using any means necessary if they dare violate the ethos of the hive mind in any way whatsoever. You do it using classic media. You do it using social media. You do it using every level of the educational system. You do it by using people's livelihoods against them. In every case the ends justify the means, all the while shrieking "NAZI!" as you spread your totalitarian ideals by any means available. You keep pretending like you don't care though.





Either the US regulates social media, or through the lack of regulation, foreign countries will regulate it anyway. This is something that needed to happen a LONG time ago, even if it is regulation to preempt foreign regulation. We shouldn't let American institutions, and systems created and funded by Americans be hijacked by foreign entities and be used to violate American freedoms and ideals. They can relocate all they like, this is still their primary market, that means they play by American rules.

Actual conservatives my ass. You want to define what facts are, now you want to define what conservatives are too eh? Why not just get it over with and define yourself as the richest king in the world and retire to enjoy your vast wealth?





He doesn't need to convince his supporters, his ACTUAL supporters have been screaming for him to take action against social media bias since 2016, and he has done virtually nothing. They also experience the censorship, they don't need convincing, he is lagging behind what they want. Of course as an "actual conservative" you have experienced this yourself right? I doubt a West Virginian coal miner much enjoys being stripped of having the ability to have their own voice while anyone to the left of Mao gets to. As a "real" fake conservative, you underestimate how much actual conservatives value free speech.

Totally a political event, he's trying to convince his supporters that the media is against him again and they're trying to censor him. I know this will go well with his base - most things do - but I'm unsure on how moderates are going to feel about this.

I highly doubt that the coal miners in WV, the former factory workers in the rust belt, or the people that are suffering from the Coronavirus really care about his spat on Twitter. They'd much rather that Trump focus his resources and time on things that will help them.

Hoping for no new regulations. Last thing gov needs is more regulations.

If they keep doing business in the US they would have to comply with US laws and regulations, regardless of where they're headquartered. Remember, "social media" or "search engine" are just euphemisms for "ad agency". And I doubt they would provide those platforms to US users for free without trying to monetize them. So they would have to either abandon the US market or cave to Trump.

I think some sort of regulations are inevitable.  I'm not sure what it will look like, but I think it would have to be a long process and include some sort of agreement with many other countries.  

This EO is a political stunt, but say Trump gets re elected and finds a way to navigate or circumvent the courts and gain the power to actually control social media sites on his own without any actual legislation, why wouldn't they just relocate to another country?  If that happened, then what?  I guess they could sanction them?  The great MAGA firewall?



Actual Conservatives^^

Trump is now demanding that FCC and other agencies come up with regulations. It's not a done deal that they will (FCC is supposed to be independent) but do you support what he's trying to do here?


The government can surely support certain education standards but conservatives tend to be against education spending.


I doubt that. Most social media users (trigger warning - blatant stereotyping follows) don't really give a shit. Might explain why there's no right-wing social media (assuming the existing social media is leftist).

Poor choice of words, geese and ganders and all.



True, but not all unpopular opinions are treated equally.  Like it or not, these social media platforms have become the place where ideas congregate, where humans virtually "assemble," both things that are protected by the first amendment.  It's painfully obvious that they shadow ban, or out-right ban proponents of conservative ideals.  On the other hand they are businesses, which are free to conduct business any way they choose.  I would never condone restrictions on free enterprise.  However, when free enterprise are extended certain protections for one reason or another, they should not be allowed to abuse those protections.  It was our government that provided them with those protections in the first place, so it's up to us to act when there is abuse.



I never suggested any regulation, I would be opposed to any, and I fear that specifically conservative notion could be the end of conservatives in this nation.  Conservatives are more likely to support the very freedoms that are currently being used and abused to paint them as evil racists.  That's a risk I'm willing to accept, however.

I am more likely to support an effort by our government to educate the public, but that begs the question of where and how?  Schools?  Colleges?  Can we really expect some of the most liberal organizations in this country to support such a conservative notion as freedom of speech?  Many of these organizations are directly responsible for political correctness, which is a form of suppression of speech.  

It's been a long time since I've been in a class room but I remember taking a critical thinking class in college.  However, I don't see many implementing those skills.  The most critical thing being ignored by liberals in this particular social media battle is that the shoe could very easily be on the other foot.  Imagine if Jack Dorsey was a bible thumping homophobe, shadow banning Planned Parenthood, and transgender-rights groups.  We'd have riots in the streets.  

Being a conservative in a very liberal environment, I'm fairly sensitive about these issues.  I feel like those who think and believe the way I do are under attack.  The movies undermine us, the news misrepresents us, intentionally many times, and now social media giants want to silence us.  This is an issue that should be of concern to all Americans, it is an affront on our most basic of rights.

Honestly I couldn't agree more with ya here SuchMoon. I'd still consider myself someone who agrees with the ideals of a Republican and a Conservative, but watching supporters of the party and the party itself attempt to bend over backwards to find some logic to support this EO is insane.

This is an attack on the rights of companies here, and in the past Republicans would've been appalled to hear the government is getting involved in capitalism and business. But no -- they're all just sitting around and complaining.

I'm against Twitter / Facebook / Instagram (etc) censoring, but they do have a right to do as it is their platform. If you don't like it - MAKE A NEW PLATFORM - DON'T GET BIG GOVERNMENT INVOLVED.

Poor guy had his constitutional rights violated for 7 days.

As I said I barely use Twitter and most of that use is reading Trump's rants so I'm still suspecting that you don't know what "literally" means.

And assuming that what you're saying is true, shouldn't Trump stop using the platform run by criminals. That's not a good look. He could pick a smaller platform that doesn't discriminate against conservatives, his loyal base would surely follow, media would surely follow, sounds like a win for everybody. And he can still prosecute the criminals without letting them monetize his presence on their platform.

Of course it is going to be challenged, but he has a solid legal basis to stand on. Holding them to the same standards all other publishers are held to is not "over reach". Section 230 was created when the internet was a new thing, and it was an industry in its infancy. Now these corporate behemoths abuse this overly broad grey area carved out for them with rights granted, but no matching responsibilities enforced. There is a simple solution to the smaller sites problem, simply define these new restrictions as only applying to operations which pass a certain user base threshold. This approach is used in other legislation. Of course you don't care about any of this as long as only the people you agree with can tweet, or have any access whatsoever to the necessities of communicating in the modern world. Literally, yes, literally.

I'm just asking since you seem to have... uhm... unique knowledge on the subject so you should know the answers, like who the criminals are, what crimes they've committed, why haven't they been prosecuted, how is Trump going to avoid legal challenges to his EO, etc.


I doubt anyone here is a big fan of Twitface. Personally for all I care the big social media sites could disappear tomorrow and I would hardly notice. They also have resources to fight the government's overreach or to comply with ludicrous bureaucracy. This attempt to overturn Section 230 is more likely to have a devastating effect on smaller sites and potential competition. But why should we care as long as Trump can tweet.

Also look up "literally". You literally don't know what it means.

Monopolies have a legal definition (not the garbage you just pulled out of your ass), standards which these social media companies meet.




Cool story bro. Funny you mentioned the fact that you stupid cunts were calling a few thousand dollars of Facefuck ads election interference, but selectively cutting off, censoring, and editorializing a political candidate and his party is not. Not really an argument that supports you, but maybe if you put it in Drake format no one will notice your hypocrisy.




It is all so simple when you get to define what facts are. Also forcing social media companies to obey laws is not equivalent to it being "state run", but whatever fuels your fascism LAARPing fantasy to give you an excuse to burn everything down and pretend you are freedom fighters while you literally destroy freedoms in the name of corporate behemoths trying to interfere in our elections.

Twitter is  disrespecting (questioning) our dear leader.  That is never ok. /s

On what basis should they be state actors when they are a private company? They aren't a public utility and the only argument you could make for Twitter regulation is that it's a forum open to the public, but not a public forum, that alters discourse. Even then, you're talking about stepping on a private companies toes for the reason of wanting to shift a platform to benefit your political party.

Going to respond to this - don't have time now.

---

What you are describing is a 'free market'.
A 'monopoly' is when one (1) company dominates an industry and prevents any sort of competition - not when when more than one company does something similar...even if you'd prefer they did it differently.